Chitaitai trademark wrangle spills into court

Businessman and founder of Chitaitai Chemicals Terence Kare is embroiled in a legal battle with his former business partners over who owns the trademark and who has the right to use the company to market products they used to make and market together.

Although the firm claims this was a mistake and the trademark should have been filed in the company's name at the time of the company's formation rather than in the name of a specific office holder, both parties acknowledge that the trademark is registered in Mr. Kare's name. Mr. Kare asserts that he is the trademark owner as the registration is in his name. The company asserts that it is the owner of the trademarks and is in the business of producing industrial and household chemical goods. After unworkable disagreements in the boardroom, Mr. Kare left his position as a director of the company and founded a new venture in the same industry.

Mr. Kare chose to withdraw his approval of the company's use of what he views as his own trademark after resigning, but his former business partners were unable to part with the logo, which served as the company's pivotal element. He asserted his exclusive and sole ownership of the trade mark at issue. Following the fallout, Mr. Kare has now petitioned the High Court for an injunction to stop the company, which is now led by his former business associates, from utilizing the trademark. Mr. Kare included Chitaitai Chemicals as a respondent in his case to the High Court.

In his court filings, Mr. Kare argued that the word "Chitaitai," which translates to "Firefly" in English, is clearly mentioned in the certificate of registration. According to Mr. Kare's statement, he granted permission for the company to use his trademark while he was still a partner, but on June 29 of last year, following his resignation, he used his right to withdraw that consent. With immediate effect, I demanded that the respondent stop utilizing my trademark. The request was met with silence.

He claims that the company should be barred from using his trademark because it is being used without his permission, which is a blatant violation of his legal right to the exclusive use of the mark for floor polish and other floor care goods. However, the business represented by Mr. Tinei Harrison counters that Mr. Kare's application is based on deception. He charges Mr. Kare with deceitfully registering the trademark in his name rather than the business'. He said that as the applicant was the respondent's secretary and director, it was his responsibility to see to it that the trademark was registered in the respondent's name.

“In the event that the applicant registered the trademark in his personal name, then it’s a fraud committed against the respondent.”

Mr Harrison further argues that the certificate states that Mr Kare’s name is included in its representative capacity as a director of the company. Both parties’ legal counsel have already filed their heads of arguments, ahead of the hearing of the dispute next week at the High Court.